This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background and Objectives: Augmented sensorimotor feedback may enhance motor learning during balance training, but whether these adaptations extend to cardiac autonomic regulation remains unclear. This study compared wobble-board training with gamified augmented feedback versus conventional wobble-board training on dynamic balance and nocturnal heart rate variability. Methods: Thirty adults were assigned to training with gamified-augmented feedback (GBT), conventional training (CBT), or control (CON). GBT and CBT completed three ~20-min sessions weekly for six weeks. Dynamic balance, measured via the modified Star Excursion Balance Test (mSEBT), and nocturnal Root Mean Square of Successive Differences (RMSSD) were assessed. Results: Group × time interactions occurred for RMSSD and mSEBT (both p < 0.001). RMSSD increased 6.93 ± 1.86 ms in GBT, versus 1.01 ± 1.38 and 0.80 ± 1.61 ms in CBT and CON, respectively. GBT exceeded CBT (mean difference, 5.92 ms; 95% CI, 4.37–7.46; Hedges’ g = 3.46) and CON (6.12 ms; 95% CI, 4.49–7.76; g = 3.38; both adjusted p < 0.001); CBT did not differ from CON (p = 0.761). mSEBT increased 7.54 ± 1.62 points in GBT, 3.65 ± 1.50 in CBT, and 0.47 ± 1.46 in CON. GBT exceeded CBT (mean difference, 3.89 points; 95% CI, 2.42–5.36; g = 2.39) and CON (7.07; 95% CI, 5.63–8.52; g = 4.40), while CBT exceeded CON (3.18; 95% CI, 1.79–4.57; g = 2.06; all adjusted p < 0.001). Conclusions: Gamified augmented feedback and its associated features were associated with greater improvements in dynamic balance and RMSSD than conventional training. Mechanisms underlying RMSSD response require further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shatagopam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: